I’ve tried to wrap my head around it, but nothing about them makes sense. Forgive my bluntness, but to me the whole idea of protestantism just seems to stem completely from ignorance. Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism, and see it as this weird “other” branch of Christianity. Some don’t even consider it Christianity, which is perhaps the most depressing part of it all.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible. Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church. So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something? I find this to be the biggest whole in Protestant logic. The Bible had to come from somewhere, and if it came from the Catholic church, then that must mean the Catholic church has authority from God.

There’s also the accusation of the supposed manmade traditions of the Church. If anything, Protestantism seems far more guilty of that than Catholicism. Protestantism picks and chooses what to do and what not to do. They decide that confession is wrong, because sin should be private, they decide the Eucharist is symbolic, the multitude of different doctrines based on different readings of scripture, etc. and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them. For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true. If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that. From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity. If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care. He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans. However, if a Catholic preist or bishop says anything, people listen. Because he is part of an organization, and he has people to answer to. He represents the church anytime he speaks out in public. Because Catholic have unity. Protestants seem to be all over the place.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible. Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church. So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something?

and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them. For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true.

Christ talked about unification and the like.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

I’ll try to help. I don’t know if this idea about the compilation of Scripture represents Protestantism as a whole but once I had a SDA tell me God could have used the early Church for whatever purpose He wanted. Including if that meant the Catholic Church compiled Scripture.

Anyway Protestants though might have a different view of what constitutes “God’s true church” than you as a Catholic do. And then consider the possibility of a belief that Christ needed/needs along the way to reform His Church so the gates do not prevail in the end. I wouldn’t say for sure that Protestants believe God abandoned His Church. Maybe some might believe it’s the other way around.

I’m not sure if you consider Episcopalians, Protestant. Many Catholics do I know. But an Episcopal priest once told me to listen to God’s Holy Spirit and He will tell me where He wants me to go. So I’m not sure it’s fair to conclude they don’t seek guidance from the Holy Spirit.

No doubt everyone can not be right. But it’s really all a matter of faith to begin with and where one places their faith. We’ll truly know with certainty when in faith He comes again. In the meantime we walk by faith. Not by sight. United in Christ as Lord and Savior.

=kbwall;9407973]I’ve tried to wrap my head around it, but nothing about them makes sense. Forgive my bluntness, but to me the whole idea of protestantism just seems to stem completely from ignorance.

Forgive my bluntness, also. I would then strongly encourage you to seek refuge in your Catholic faith. It is there, in word and sacrament, that you belong. Stop trying to wrap your head around it.

Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism, and see it as this weird “other” branch of Christianity. Some don’t even consider it Christianity, which is perhaps the most depressing part of it all.

And I at times, am surprised at the reverse. But rest assured, Catholicism is Chrstianity, and perhaps is the center of it.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air.

No. The ones of which you are speaing think it is from God, but ignore the role the uundivided Church played in its compilation.

It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible.

agreed.

Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church. So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something? I find this to be the biggest whole in Protestant logic. The Bible had to come from somewhere, and if it came from the Catholic church, then that must mean the Catholic church has authority from God.

And what of the Orthodox?

There’s also the accusation of the supposed manmade traditions of the Church. If anything, Protestantism seems far more guilty of that than Catholicism.

In some instances, true.

Protestantism picks and chooses what to do and what not to do. They decide that confession is wrong, because sin should be private, they decide the Eucharist is symbolic, the multitude of different doctrines based on different readings of scripture, etc. and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them.

see, here’s the “incredible ignorance”. Read the Lutheran confessions and you will find that none of this is true for us.

For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true. If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that. From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity.

Really? Where do you think protestant communions came from? Is it from the same thin air some protestants seem to think the Bible came from?

If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care. He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans.

I can’t speak for Baptists and Methodists because they are no more Lutheran than they are Catholic, but if a pastor in a Lutheran Church stands up and speaks heresy, I promise you people will notice, and the Church will respond.

However, if a Catholic preist or bishop says anything, people listen. Because he is part of an organization, and he has people to answer to. He represents the church anytime he speaks out in public. Because Catholic have unity. Protestants seem to be all over the place.

You speak of protestantism as a monolithic entity. It never has been. So, perhaps it will help you “wrap your head” around it by viewing individual communions, instead.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

Understood, and thank you for your prayers. We need them. :gopray:
While you’re at it, pray for unity. we all need that.

I’ve tried to wrap my head around it, but nothing about them makes sense. Forgive my bluntness, but to me the whole idea of protestantism just seems to stem completely from ignorance. Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism, and see it as this weird “other” branch of Christianity. Some don’t even consider it Christianity, which is perhaps the most depressing part of it all.

I think a lot of it has to do with nationalistic drift. Descendants of the initial Reformers separated themselves from Catholics entirely and developed a uniquely American identity to which Catholicism was either a complete stranger or a vague, unfamiliar threat.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible. Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church.

No, they actually don’t. I, for one, would point out how there was never a consensus on the OT canon. Meaning, more precisely, there was never a consensus among Catholics on the exact number of books that are in the Septuagint.

And I would submit that you must question the story logic of divine guidance that brings everyone into full agreement on the New Testament but never clears up how many of the Macabees belong in the Deuterocanon or if Psalm 151 is really divinely inspired.

So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something?

If you’re talking about the Schism, the average Protestant- that is, the kind who never spends time on internet forums discussing religion- barely knows what the Schism is at all. But I’m not sure that you are talking about the Schism, and I also think you have too much confidence in your ability to sell Protestants on a particularly Latinized idea of what early Church authority must have consisted of.

I find this to be the biggest whole in Protestant logic. The Bible had to come from somewhere, and if it came from the Catholic church, then that must mean the Catholic church has authority from God.

Hole closed, you’re welcome.

There’s also the accusation of the supposed manmade traditions of the Church. If anything, Protestantism seems far more guilty of that than Catholicism. Protestantism picks and chooses what to do and what not to do. They decide that confession is wrong, because sin should be private, they decide the Eucharist is symbolic, the multitude of different doctrines based on different readings of scripture, etc. and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them.

Not in the sense of a special divine authority, no. But how would it make more sense if we did? How is that consistent with anything in the history of Protestantism? And why is it wrong to have man-made teaching that is actually understood as man-made?

For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true. If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that.

Hey now. You can get away with that around most Protestants because most of them know nothing about Orthodoxy. What is it that you think Orthodox teaching is, if it’s not one set of ground rules purported to be the single set of teachings that is right?

From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

I would say individual churches or individual communions rather than individual people. On major issues that any of us would call major, the major things do matter.

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity.

You say this in one breath, and let me guess- in the next, you will start talking about various denominations that BROKE AWAY FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You would be able to talk about Catholic unity more convincingly if you were able to talk about all the denominations that broke away from SOMEONE ELSE instead of from the CC.

Let me rephrase that. When other people talk about all the denominations that broke away from you and point out how this did not happen to them, They Make a More Convincing Case for Unity.

If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care.

They do get disfellowshipped if they’re really trenchant and they make it a serious problem. Then it has to be taken somewhere else. And people do care. Also, I was right with my earlier guess.

He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans. However, if a Catholic preist or bishop says anything, people listen.

He’s a lot easier to ignore when he’s not around anymore. And if you’ve been watching the news lately, following the whole contraception thing, it appears that in several cases something like a Jesuit-founded university may choose to ignore what bishops say and get away with it long term while maintaining its Catholic status. The situation with private Catholic schools- in America, at least- is certainly not where you want it to be. And I haven’t even said anything about how likely a Protestant or a non-religious person is to listen to Catholic leadership and take it seriously. Plus, in raw numbers and percentages, there’s more of a disconnect between the priest and the Catholic laity than there is between any given Protestant minister and their laity. It helps that Protestant laity are more likely to show up at church and less likely to be nominal, so that needs to be considered as well.

Because he is part of an organization, and he has people to answer to. He represents the church anytime he speaks out in public. Because Catholic have unity. Protestants seem to be all over the place.

We are not as united as we need to be, but we are working on it and there is more unity than most Catholics are willing to give us credit for. I chalk that up to ignorance and a steadfast refusal to believe me or anyone else who says that sort of thing.

We are working on it, but we’re not taking any shortcuts. Yes, if one particular person designates himself as the person acting in persona Christi that everyone must get behind, that would be a shortcut.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant.

For real? It’s because, on the whole, Protestants comprise a community of believers that is better at evangelizing non-Christians and better at helping Christians become better Christians. Those results speak for themselves.

Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

I hope there was at least one thing from my post that helped something make sense.

I think a lot of it has to do with nationalistic drift. Descendants of the initial Reformers separated themselves from Catholics entirely and developed a uniquely American identity to which Catholicism was either a complete stranger or a vague, unfamiliar threat.

No, they actually don’t. I, for one, would point out how there was never a consensus on the OT canon. Meaning, more precisely, there was never a consensus among Catholics on the exact number of books that are in the Septuagint.

And I would submit that you must question the story logic of divine guidance that brings everyone into full agreement on the New Testament but never clears up how many of the Macabees belong in the Deuterocanon or if Psalm 151 is really divinely inspired.

If you’re talking about the Schism, the average Protestant- that is, the kind who never spends time on internet forums discussing religion- barely knows what the Schism is at all. But I’m not sure that you are talking about the Schism, and I also think you have too much confidence in your ability to sell Protestants on a particularly Latinized idea of what early Church authority must have consisted of.

Hole closed, you’re welcome.

Not in the sense of a special divine authority, no. But how would it make more sense if we did? How is that consistent with anything in the history of Protestantism? And why is it wrong to have man-made teaching that is actually understood as man-made?

Hey now. You can get away with that around most Protestants because most of them know nothing about Orthodoxy. What is it that you think Orthodox teaching is, if it’s not one set of ground rules purported to be the single set of teachings that is right?

I would say individual churches or individual communions rather than individual people. On major issues that any of us would call major, the major things do matter.

You say this in one breath, and let me guess- in the next, you will start talking about various denominations that BROKE AWAY FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You would be able to talk about Catholic unity more convincingly if you were able to talk about all the denominations that broke away from SOMEONE ELSE instead of from the CC.

Let me rephrase that. When other people talk about all the denominations that broke away from you and point out how this did not happen to them, They Make a More Convincing Case for Unity.

They do get disfellowshipped if they’re really trenchant and they make it a serious problem. Then it has to be taken somewhere else. And people do care. Also, I was right with my earlier guess.

He’s a lot easier to ignore when he’s not around anymore. And if you’ve been watching the news lately, following the whole contraception thing, it appears that in several cases something like a Jesuit-founded university may choose to ignore what bishops say and get away with it long term while maintaining its Catholic status. The situation with private Catholic schools- in America, at least- is certainly not where you want it to be. And I haven’t even said anything about how likely a Protestant or a non-religious person is to listen to Catholic leadership and take it seriously. Plus, in raw numbers and percentages, there’s more of a disconnect between the priest and the Catholic laity than there is between any given Protestant minister and their laity. It helps that Protestant laity are more likely to show up at church and less likely to be nominal, so that needs to be considered as well.

We are not as united as we need to be, but we are working on it and there is more unity than most Catholics are willing to give us credit for. I chalk that up to ignorance and a steadfast refusal to believe me or anyone else who says that sort of thing.

We are working on it, but we’re not taking any shortcuts. Yes, if one particular person designates himself as the person acting in persona Christi that everyone must get behind, that would be a shortcut.

For real? It’s because, on the whole, Protestants comprise a community of believers that is better at evangelizing non-Christians and better at helping Christians become better Christians. Those results speak for themselves.

I hope there was at least one thing from my post that helped something make sense.

Pardon me sir, but nothing you said made any sense, mainly because your target is Christs bride, who has his blessing that she will ‘prevail against the gates of hell’ :D.

Sixpence, you seem like a good person and I like your responses although I sometimes see a hint of pride/arrogance in your words. In truth though I could not claim to be any better. I pray that in Christian Charity we may grow in faith together!

A few things I would say…

Sixpence:

Not in the sense of a special divine authority, no. But how would it make more sense if we did? How is that consistent with anything in the history of Protestantism? And why is it wrong to have man-made teaching that is actually understood as man-made?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you not recognize the guidance of the Holy Spirit? You seem to claim protestantism as a part of who you are. I find that interesting. If I was in your situation I would use the words, “history of Christianity”. I sometimes fear that my separated Brothers and Sisters might reject everything that happened between 100AD and 1500AD.

Let me rephrase that. When other people talk about all the denominations that broke away from you and point out how this did not happen to them, They Make a More Convincing Case for Unity.

Does a couple who abandoned the rest of their family but has stayed together make a stronger case for unity than the family they left? no. If the couple was truly committed to family, they wouldn’t have abandoned their fathers and mothers.

He’s a lot easier to ignore when he’s not around anymore. And if you’ve been watching the news lately, following the whole contraception thing, it appears that in several cases something like a Jesuit-founded university may choose to ignore what bishops say and get away with it long term while maintaining its Catholic status. The situation with private Catholic schools- in America, at least- is certainly not where you want it to be. And I haven’t even said anything about how likely a Protestant or a non-religious person is to listen to Catholic leadership and take it seriously. Plus, in raw numbers and percentages, there’s more of a disconnect between the priest and the Catholic laity than there is between any given Protestant minister and their laity. It helps that Protestant laity are more likely to show up at church and less likely to be nominal, so that needs to be considered as well.

I find it interesting that both parties are speaking of things that they do not really know about. Yes the Catholic priest is still around! I see the exact opposite in my communities. I see priests who are active and taking care of the peoples needs. I see people who listen attentively to their priests. I see profound connection between priests and the laity. You are commenting upon the worst of what is happening in the Church without qualifying it with the Best. You talk about the nominal Catholics, but what of them? What about us who are passionate about our faith and Love our Church?

We are not as united as we need to be, but we are working on it and there is more unity than most Catholics are willing to give us credit for. I chalk that up to ignorance and a steadfast refusal to believe me or anyone else who says that sort of thing.

We are working on it, but we’re not taking any shortcuts. Yes, if one particular person designates himself as the person acting in persona Christi that everyone must get behind, that would be a shortcut.

I am profoundly reminded of the Tower of Babel. The Church does not have one particular person designated as acting in “persona Christi”. Rather, all of the priests seek to act in the person of Christ when they speak the very authoritative words of Christ. The Catholic Church is not held together because we are “working on it” although we do fight for unity… We are held together because God is keeping us together. To get back to the Tower of Babel imagery, it is in unity that we are brought to God. At Babel the people tried to build their way to God. Through the Church God tries to build his way to the people. I would say that the bishops (especially throughout history) have just as many issues and disagreements as protestants do. But today there are 5000+ bishops in union! So why does the Church have more unity than the protestants? I would say ONLY because of the intercession of the Holy Spirit. We have nothing to boast in but the Lord! I guess you could call that a short cut

For real? It’s because, on the whole, Protestants comprise a community of believers that is better at evangelizing non-Christians and better at helping Christians become better Christians. Those results speak for themselves.

Again, this is your perspective. I see a very strong Church and ‘results that speak for themselves’. Let’s not be prideful and think that we are ‘better’ than one another. You are my brother after all!

How many various ways and times are we going to have this exact same discussion? I suppose it will continue until the number of our Saints’ fellow brethren has been completed, that is, until the end of time. I suppose we’re doomed to explain, often fruitlessly, exactly why the Catholic Church is the one true church of Jesus Christ.

So let’s get our gloves on, shall we? Where should we begin, Apostolic succession? The Eucharist? Sola scriptura?

How many various ways and times are we going to have this exact same discussion? I suppose it will continue until the number of our Saints’ fellow brethren has been completed, that is, until the end of time. I suppose we’re doomed to explain, often fruitlessly, exactly why the Catholic Church is the one true church of Jesus Christ.

So let’s get our gloves on, shall we? Where should we begin, Apostolic succession? The Eucharist? Sola scriptura?

For the reasons you give I left Protestantism and came back to the first church. I had a women try to sneak in a jab at me in a deli on Ash Wednesday. She saw the ashes and said , “Oh Ash Wednesday, I used to do that.” I said , Why did you stop?" She said, “it’s not in the bible.” Little did she know for 15 years or more I was saying the same things.

I further said, “do you read the bible?”, she said, “Oh yeah”. It was then I told her the word bible is not in the bible. She gave me a , “yeah but” without finishing. When pressed many go blank on Christianity’s 300 years of non scripture. Thats a small example . Protestantism from any rational standpoint makes little sense to me either.

And what point are you trying to make? Do you believe somehow I am in error? If so, please make your point clearly.

It looks like you are desperate for a fight. I’ll entertain you

Looking at our 1st Pope words here:

[bibledrb]1 Peter 3:8-9[/bibledrb]

I fail to see how your “gloves” show being merciful, modest or humble. On the contrary, it presents itself as being arrogant and childish.

Further, instead of having a humble heart reaction to my post, you jump into a challenge.

What is your point? - you cry!
Am I in error? - you cry!

My point is that your post is ignorant on the basis of the love promulgated by our OHCAC, defending our Faith is not about showing “macho” attitude in an impersonal forum. But about having an intelligent conversation with others.

Time and time again we’ve proven it. You’re requiring the very same explanations over and over again. We’re already serving you in this way.

70 times 7 times.

You have been here for 110 posts. I have required no explanations of you. there are those here from whom I have sought explanations, but not with the gloves on, not to debate, but to seek knowledge from those here who have proven the know of what they speak. None that I trust have approached dialogue with your tone.

I am sure, sadly, that you will get some takers, however. It just won’t be me.

Yeah, I admit I’m worthless. I had a few good days this week where I was charitable and loving somewhat. But today, fostered by a loss of sleep, I’m back to being my old vice-ridden self. Sorry for subjecting all of you to my miserable attitude like that.